Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Andrea Glandon
40:34
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Jim Prendergast
40:52
we had that yesterday in our hood.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:05
in Zoom room now
Maxim Alzoba
42:31
hello all
Emily Barabas
42:48
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit
Anne Aikman-Scalese
43:53
Is jeff cutting out or is it my phone?
Andrea Glandon
44:04
He sounds okay to me, Anne
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:18
sound ok for me
Martin Sutton
44:32
sounds fine Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:44
gremlins @Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
45:20
it is better to use ICANN accredited, to distinguish between Registry accredited
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:53
noted @Maxim
Susan.Payne
48:19
honestly I don't think the language in the sentence is unclear at all
Kathy Kleiman
48:21
Can you remind us of the rationale, Jeff?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:35
not the intent at all!!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:42
Yes - Jeff - it's a language problem. It IS unclear
Susan.Payne
49:16
Move the comma: Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted
Martin Sutton
49:43
+1 Susan
Kathy Kleiman
49:45
I like the public comment aspect
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:48
The problem is the very broad nature of "unless an exemption is granted"
Susan.Payne
50:07
yep public comment bit is fine
Poncelet Ileleji
50:23
Agreed with public comment
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:48
so does @Susan have it right with the comma move?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:10
Would need to know that Code of Conduct will not change, however
Susan.Payne
53:16
why does it matter if the code of conduct changes Anne, for these purposes? this is talking about having to have an exemption to it, for a particular circumstance
Martin Sutton
53:22
I think referring back to Code of Conduct process should be adequate. As Jeff said, there would need to be a process to undertake changes to the code of conduct
Jim Prendergast
53:34
There are registrars who are accredited for ccTLDs but not ICANN accredited
Susan.Payne
54:39
but if brands do their own registrations they aren't really acting as a registrar, i.e. they aren't selling names to third parties so they aren't a source of discrimination
Susan.Payne
55:12
the code of conduct is in the RA
Martin Sutton
55:42
ICANN accredited registrars is covered in the text
christopher wilkinson
56:49
The remaining issue is the new gTLD which fails to attract support from incumbent Registrars, and should be allowed to self Register names up dot a threshold of time or numbers. Otherwise incumbents can effectively resist the new entrants. No.
Kathy Kleiman
57:08
But other than Brands?
christopher wilkinson
57:54
@Kathy - I am thinking about small new geo names.
christopher wilkinson
58:05
E.g. non EN scriopts
Kathy Kleiman
58:06
OK, tx!
Martin Sutton
58:34
@Kathy - Code of Conduct exemption is a only a part of Spec 13 terms
Steve Chan
01:04:28
Beijing Communique here: https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann46-beijing-communique
christopher wilkinson
01:04:38
Illegible font on screen: Please revert to #18.
Steve Chan
01:05:11
Document now being shared: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2-05feb14-en.pdf
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:50
Switzerland: Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2) : GAC Advice on categories of applications should remain possible,where emerging issues and/or unexpected concerns arise regarding a category of applications.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:05
agree with Paul
Paul McGrady
01:17:29
@Jeff - thank you for all of that factual background and answering the additional questions.
Paul McGrady
01:19:26
How can the dollar be a geographic term? Looks like at least 22 countries use it. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+countries+use+dollars&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS848US848&oq=how+many+countries+use+dollars&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.7551j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
christopher wilkinson
01:20:57
@ Paul: $ is not necessarily geographic,. But I
christopher wilkinson
01:22:24
.USD is geographic. There are 200+ currency codes, only a few of which are ‘plural-country’.
Justine Chew
01:22:49
I think there is a need to affirm this NGPC framework implementation in some logical way because they highlight public interest and safety concerns.
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:03
+1 Justine
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:24:32
How do we rationalise that with the conclusion we've already reached not to create more categories?
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:44
they were investigating where gala tickets went ;)
Jeffrey Neuman (Co-Chair SubPro PDP)
01:26:10
I like the word Justine used..."Framework".....we would be affirming the general framework
christopher wilkinson
01:26:10
@Donna - when such? Additional categories will arise on the evidence of the applications.
Justine Chew
01:28:35
+1 Jim
Jeffrey Neuman (Co-Chair SubPro PDP)
01:28:38
Yes @Jim...
Jeffrey Neuman (Co-Chair SubPro PDP)
01:28:48
No, we would be affirming the implementation
Annebeth Lange
01:28:48
+1 @ Jim.
Poncelet Ileleji
01:29:06
+1 Jim
Jim Prendergast
01:29:42
can I come back?
Annebeth Lange
01:29:50
The thought of categories was actually shot down very early in the process leading to AGB 2012. My personal view is that if there had been different rules for different categories
Justine Chew
01:29:55
If we affirm implementation of this framework in some logical way then we can try and streamline the process of dealing with strings that might fall under this framework.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:29:56
It seems like a subjective application of predictability.
Annebeth Lange
01:30:08
..we might not have had some of the problems we have today
Justine Chew
01:30:47
So do I @Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:30:50
I agree with Jeff on that
Justine Chew
01:31:14
+1 Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:31:31
It will save time following the view of Jeff here, in my view
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:31:43
Who will the category that a string fits into?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:53
It does not seem to me that we have any public comment on this topic.
Susan.Payne
01:31:59
I agree with Jeff, we may as well lt applicants know that this is going to be an issue for them - and we know it will be
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:00
sorry, who will determine the category that string fits into.
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:40
This is what happened in 2012, so it needs to be replicated mostly as is unless we agree to change.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:48
I think that's a reasonable approach from Jim, but I'm still concerned about who makes the determination.
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:51
Donna, if we repeat 2012, GAC.
christopher wilkinson
01:33:00
@Donna - predictability is key for ALL interested parties, not only the applicant. It. Is already inevitably subjective to a degree.
Taylor Bentley (Canada)
01:33:13
not it is sufficiently complicated ;]
Taylor Bentley (Canada)
01:33:21
thanks Jim
Taylor Bentley (Canada)
01:33:32
*no it is
Jim Prendergast
01:34:34
its not conclucive - right -- applicant beware
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:35:56
So, do we leave it to the GAC again to call out certain strings??
Rubens Kuhl
01:36:46
Gg, yes unless we suggest someone else does it.
Christa Taylor
01:36:49
Religious category created issues and would be helpful for future applicants
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:06
.COVID
Jim Prendergast
01:37:08
any list we develop will not be definitive.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:37:24
We need to provide some predictability beyond "beware."
Rubens Kuhl
01:37:32
GAC list was not supposed by GAC to be definitive either, but ICANN simply followed them to the letter.
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:34
+1 Gg
Jim Prendergast
01:37:50
I don't think Chrysler thought they would have an issue applying for .RAM for trucks and having it challenged on religious basis
Justine Chew
01:37:53
Focus on decriptions and rationale for safeguards, and use examples from this list.
Justine Chew
01:38:33
Based on this framework
Justine Chew
01:39:34
And explain the process that follows if an applied-for string gets called out for treatment under this framework
Annebeth Lange
01:39:49
We know from the 2012-round that the GAC is able to delay the process considerably if we do not listen to their advice.
Justine Chew
01:40:31
@Annebeth, correct, so it makes further sense to try and affirm this somehow
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:41:56
The applicant reviewers would decide if the safeguards must apply.
Rubens Kuhl
01:41:58
We can also specify that getting categorised implies the same refund as getting GAC EW.
Annebeth Lange
01:42:00
@Justine, at least for those who want that it should be possible to apply for new gTLDs as soon as possible. Governments have a lot of considerations the rest of us don’t have
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:22
Gg, there is no application evaluation on safeguards.
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:38
So we would need to specify a new evaluation type.
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:04
It's in there Jeff, 10.
Justine Chew
01:43:39
@Rubens, I like the idea of new evaluation for safeguards
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:42
Global Warming is not governmental in US or Brazil.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:44:27
PAUL - you promise to be quiet????!!!!
Paul McGrady
01:44:55
@Anne - ha!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:14
@Jeff - you want to adopt these PICS to prevent conflicting advice that is MORE restrictive than the 2012 implementation?
Susan.Payne
01:45:33
I think we know that the GAC did not call these out as an exhaustive list, although that is how they were treated. The GAC intended this to cover any strings in the category types. We can't rule out that there might be other types in future, but we already know that these types are a problem from the GAC perspective and would lead to this type of advice again. I think we have to try to address it contractually up front
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:46:10
+1 @ Susan
Justine Chew
01:46:12
I am repeating -Affirm framework by focusing on decriptions and rationale for safeguards, and use examples from this list.Based on this framework Then explain the process that follows if an applied-for string gets called out for treatment under this framework, including a "safeguard evaluation".
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:46:48
@Susan, does that mean that if you have 3 strings in contention and only one of the applicants agrees to abide by certain safeguards, does that mean that is the only applicant that can prevail?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:04
Self declare to a type seems like an interesting add to what is being discussed now...
Annebeth Lange
01:47:28
@Martin, that is an interesting suggestion
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:35
what if you don't self-declare?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:47:47
Can self-declaration be gamed?
Justine Chew
01:47:48
Then you get called out
Susan.Payne
01:47:51
@Donna, that would be why it's better not to leave it to the applicant to decide
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:47:56
So long as applicants can't just say, "no, this doesn't apply to me," when it actually does.
Paul McGrady
01:48:06
Interesting idea Martin.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:48:25
It's pretty easy to warn the applicants as suggested by Jim, Paul, et al. Jeff suggests we may want to make a specific policy recommendation affirming the existing PICS in order to "head off at the pass" some more restrictive PICs than these.
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:38
who is reviewing?
Annebeth Lange
01:48:44
The applicants should have the information about the categories in advance
Alexander Schubert
01:49:04
+1 Annebeth
Rubens Kuhl
01:49:06
I think PICs already cover self-identification. If you include the PICs from 2012 categories from start, you basically identified yourself as that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:15
worst thing is to be stuck in limbo
Susan.Payne
01:49:44
+1 Maxim
Annebeth Lange
01:49:51
Exactly, Jeffr!
Paul McGrady
01:49:56
@Jeff - I think we need a strawman to work with to get to our destination. Can we get that and take it up on the next call?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:53
Perhaps calling out the advisory on this issue (as opposed to a "warning"
Jim Prendergast
01:51:00
give warning. point to contract, GAC advice and Board resolutions in AGB.
Annebeth Lange
01:51:01
I agree on that
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:51:08
Yes, but more importantly, the GAC clearly does.
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:11
I believe CCT-RT mentioned something towards that.
Justine Chew
01:51:18
I thought I have stated yes
Katrin Ohlmer
01:51:18
+1 Jim
Martin Sutton
01:51:19
Paul’s talking again……..
Justine Chew
01:51:25
LOL
Jeffrey Neuman (Co-Chair SubPro PDP)
01:51:25
Do we point to the contract or do we say these are the contractual provisions that will apply
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:27
:-)
Jim Prendergast
01:51:44
both
Jeffrey Neuman (Co-Chair SubPro PDP)
01:51:46
Pointing to the contract means its optional and the GAC could negotiate with the Board more stringent provisions
Annebeth Lange
01:51:54
Paul, you should be quiet ;-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:55
Jeff is suggesting it is safer to say: "The WG affirms the categories and affirms the specific PICs".
Rubens Kuhl
01:52:04
It's fair to the 2012 registries to include similar PICs down the road.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:52:24
+1 Anne and Rubens
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:27
Noted @Rubens
Alexander Schubert
01:52:35
Yes! There are strings that deserve extra protections. I work on 3 of them. Would be nice to get into communications with GAC BEFORE we apply - to factor in their input.
Jim Prendergast
01:53:02
we cant anticipate what the GAC does in the AGB. (unless of course we aske for final GAC advice prior to AGB being published but I've given up on that dream)
Annebeth Lange
01:53:10
@Alexander, I agree
Paul McGrady
01:53:20
@Jim - it is a great dream though.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:20
Indeed @Alexander I think we're getting something towards that
Paul McGrady
01:53:35
Or are likely to apply
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:44
what contractual provisions?
Alexander Schubert
01:54:16
I would be HAPPY about pre-apllication feedback by GAC!
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:54:52
Yes.
Paul McGrady
01:55:16
@Jeff - let's just write it down and wordsmith it then
Alexander Schubert
01:55:20
Being able yo consult with GAC pre-application would save everybody a LOT of trouble.
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:23
Tx!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:25
It would be tricky to get GAC input ahead of application - no way to protect confidentiality of your business plan prior to disclosing.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:56:20
We can say "including but not limited to"
Paul McGrady
01:56:47
Please...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:02
10 mins in the call left
Annebeth Lange
01:57:04
And - the representatives from governments are changing from year to year
Alexander Schubert
01:57:18
My business plans are public - already now. These are public-benefit, non-profits: owned, funded & governed by communities.
Jim Prendergast
01:57:22
we haven't heard back from Council on that letter, correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:10
discussion continues in Council
Alexander Schubert
01:58:17
Annabeth: the reps might change but the issues should remain.
Rubens Kuhl
01:58:28
DNS Abuse is not something that will be exclusive of 2022+ TLDs. So I don't see why doing something specific in SubPro.
Rubens Kuhl
01:58:57
Except .con, the 2022+ TLD for everything deceptive.
Annebeth Lange
01:59:03
@Alexander, I agree. But we should be aware, anyway
Alexander Schubert
01:59:08
It's hard to make "real changes" to an application AFTER submission.
Jim Prendergast
01:59:25
im sure the GAC does but we will find out soon enough
Paul McGrady
01:59:48
Too bad because I think this Auspicious group could solve DNS abuse once and for all. :-)
Paul McGrady
02:00:02
hahahahha
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:00:10
Always the optimist Paul
Rubens Kuhl
02:00:16
2100+ TLDs then.
Julie Hedlund
02:00:29
Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction) -- time permitting
Jim Prendergast
02:02:05
why are we starting on this with 7 minutes left? this isn't simple
Paul McGrady
02:02:14
+1 Jim.
Jim Prendergast
02:02:51
thanks
Rubens Kuhl
02:02:53
Public procurement frequently uses weighted evaluation, it's not hard to factor a multiplier.
Jim Prendergast
02:03:06
^^^^ agree
Paul McGrady
02:03:25
So, for clarity, auctions are the subject of the next call?
Rubens Kuhl
02:03:34
Subway contracts in São Paulo.
Paul McGrady
02:03:52
@Jeff - thanks!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:04:12
Larger discussion as in ICANN68?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:14
Good progress again today, thanks everyone... More next week of course see note from Julie in chat above... Bye for now...
Paul McGrady
02:04:15
Really great call today Jeff. Thank you.
Annebeth Lange
02:04:33
Thanks, a good call!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:47
We will give more time for feedback n Package 5 though
Katrin Ohlmer
02:04:51
Thanks, all!
Kathy Kleiman
02:04:53
Bye!
Julie Hedlund
02:04:54
Next meeting: Monday, 08 June at 1500 UTC
Maxim Alzoba
02:04:57
bye all
Justine Chew
02:04:59
Thanks all
Rubens Kuhl
02:05:01
Bye all!
Olga Cavalli
02:05:03
bye all